You don't have to drink the water in Mexico. You can stay right here and get the same effect- or worse.

A recent Salmonella outbreak has been traced to Mexican peppers. The US Food and Drug Administration says they are surprised by the source of the outbreak because Mexican peppers had not been spotted as a problem before. Bullshit, which by the way, is a potential carrier of Salmonella.

In the course of the past year over 100 shipments of peppers from Mexico were turned away for either being dirty and diseased and/or outright having Salmonella. That's over 100 out of the less than 1% that were inspected.

Why are we so determined to make NAFTA work when it so obviously does not? Mexico either needs to get it's stuff up to snuff or peddle it's wares elsewhere. We Americans deserve better than to be poisoned by our so called trade partners.

We should immediately and severely curtail our importation of food stuffs from Mexico. This policy should stay in effect until Mexico can provide us with safe food. If Mexico gets upset, too damn bad. If they want to say we are being undiplomatic and unneighborly, too damn bad. I'll tell you what's undiplomatic and unneighborly, sending your neighbor poisoned food. That's what.

Chicken and eggs are the cause of most salmonella outbreaks... My guess is the Mexicans are transporting tomatos and peppers in trucks used for chickens... ICK!

All you have to do to reduce the risk of salmonella is wash every food import from Mexico thoroughly. But that isn't the issue here, is it, Aint? The issue is NAFTA. How has NAFTA benefitted Mexico or any other country who has signed on to it
?

The USA is no longer a country of producers, it's a country of consummers. It therefore needs suppliers for its consumption

How can we stop that? I don't think we can.

We're turning our farmland into its 'highest and best' use (i.e., the use that will provide the most tax money) by opening it up to commercial devolopment--most of which is geared toward the consumer.

So, is NAFTA needed? You tell me.

No, the best farm land in the USA... the San Joaquin Valley in Cali is being used by the famers that own it...to grow produce.

And that is exactly what we can do about it. We have the consumer base to consume more production. We should produce more produce.

Absolutely people should be washing their produce, domestic and import. We should be doing this as a precaution, not as a necessity to compensate for poisonous products. We have standards and they need to be enforced.

That we do consume so much is what gives us the power to enforce our standards. Instead of wondering if we can do without them, they should wonder if they can do without us. We are the customer. A high dollar customer. Want to keep us? Treat us right.

First, may I say that I'm not necessarily a NAFTA fan any more than I'm a WTO fan. It was sold to us with high hopes, as most government agreements--whether Rep or Dem--are sold to the public. NAFTA is more than what it appears to be on the surface. It cleared the way for investment, for example, and has, as a goal, the creation of a N/S American Trade Association similar to the European Free Trade Association.

As an experiment, it's pretty generally a failure. Has it raised the average salaries of Mexican peasants? No. If it had, there wouldn't be so many illegal immigrants. Has it created a higher trade surplus for the US? No. As a matter of fact, we have a trade deficit with Mexico.

But NAFTA isn't just about produce--it's about everything we import from Mexico and Canada, from produce to car parts. And, while certain areas in California may allow year round produce farming, there are more areas in the nation that, because of seasonal changes, don't. This is where consumerism comes into play. We're no longer used to changing our diets as the seasons change. We want to go to the grocery store in December and have a choice of fresh lettuces for our evening meal. And do we know where the ingredients in our processed foods come from?

As for environmental and other standards, how can we impose them on other countries when we don't follow them ourselves?

Clinton sold us NAFTA and I've heard very little about it from either him or his wife on the campaign trail.

In fact, none of the candidates seem to discuss it much. And reporters would rather report Obama's cold, or McCain's temper than deal with real issues.

I was never in favor of NAFTA, am not in favor of it now, and probably will not be in favor of it ever. I can't see that it's done any good to anyone except manufacturers of cars and other goods now made overseas.

The prices of cars, or anything else for that matter, certainly haven't come down because of NAFTA. And as usual, nobody gets rich off it except the rich.

It's destroyed the US Auto industry, what was left of it, and created a bonanza for investors and executives because where a car that sold for $24,000 could be made in the USA for $10,000, it can now be made in Mexico for $2000. (These aren't actual figures, I'm just using them for comparison purposes. There would be no reason to make cars in Mexico if it weren't cheaper to do so there). Do they lower your price to reflect these savings?

You tell me.

Nonsense. The US auto industry destroyed the US auto industry with a shoddy product and poor negotiation skills. It has very little to do with NAFTA.

In part you are right, Stone, but those problems were solvable here in the US. Instead, they went elsewhere, so the final blow came as I stated.

I have heard that instead of forcing the Mexicans to improve the standards of the food they ship to the US, the FDA is allowing lettuce and other crops normally eaten raw, to be irradiated.

Its possible to interpret this as just being the FDA attempting to protect the US consumer, or as being the FDA squirming out of setting up barriers to Mexican raw produce until the product meets the safety standards that US consumers expect and presumably what US food safety laws demand.

I don't approve of trade barriers, but I approve of food poisoning even less.

http://tinyurl.com/6kgar7